The country team meeting is the primary tool that the Ambassador uses to coordinate US policy for that country. How the Ambassador chooses to use that tool -- ie, structure and lead the meeting -- is up to them.

I've been in DOS for about 6 years, and after taking part in country team meetings under 5 Ambassadors and 2 CDAs I find Bob Jones's SOCPAC quote -- "if you've seen one country team, you've seen one country team" -- to be the most concise encapsulation of the country team experience I've ever come across.

As Stan, Old Eagle, Tom Odom, and others point out, the country team's meetings will reflect the style of that particular Ambassador or CDA. Some meetings will be a series of loosely-structured, section-by-section updates and free-wheeling issue discussions, whereas other meetings will be very concise and to the point. (I clocked my shortest country team meeting, in Burundi several years ago, at about 11 minutes.) Some meetings will be used to share information and make key decisions, other meetings can turn into free-for-alls, where even the GSO tries to have input on political or security/CT-related decisions, and most meetings will fall somewhere in between.

All of these types of meetings (yes, even the maddening free-for-alls...) can be useful when employed properly, and knowing how to function effectively in either environment is a critical survival skill for anyone with a role on the country team.

One point that should not be a revelation to anyone, but that still bears making, especially for those with limited country team & DOS experience, is just how much country team business actually gets done & decided *outside* the country team meeting. An Ambassador will probably arrive at the country team meeting with a fairly clear idea of where he wants to go with an issue; if not exactly where, then at least a good idea of the direction in which he wants things to move. A smart country team participant will prepare accordingly and will try to make sure, that for any issue that will be formally decided in country team, he has already talked with and lined up support from others with a stake in the issue. This includes talking with the Ambassador *before* the meeting. (I've been surprised at the number of people I've seen who've gotten this part dead wrong.)

As in any bureaucratic culture, the informal networks at an Embassy are often at least as important and influential as the formal networks. So playing Texas Hold 'Em and having a few beers on a Wednesday night with the A/RSO, the deputy from pol shop, the MSG Det Cmdr, the Commerce Dept rep, and the DCM's OMS's husband suddenly takes on a new importance...

As a counterpoint to one of Old Eagle's comments, many of us "State types" -- especially those of us hired in the last several years, many of whom come to the Department with significant private sector experience -- really do wish that there was more focus on results and less on process at DOS. Many of us "enjoy" this process the same way we would "enjoy" beating our heads against a brick wall all afternoon. At the same time, we understand that the structure of decision-making at State mainly operates through buy-in, compromise, and consensus, and so that's the game we play.

I just read the AF guide to State/DOD cultural differences for which Abu Jack posted a link. I think it's a great read and a concise explanation of both cultures, and would be useful for anyone from State or DOD who has to work with folks from the other Dept. I also found it fairly prescient in some areas, by anticipating the challenges that State and DOD have had in working closely together in Iraq and Afghanistan, given that it was written in 1998.

I'm curious if any of the other DOS folks on SWJ have any input here....?